Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

  • 77 Ohio St. 3d 91
  • 671 N.E.2d 232
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 13, 1996
Status
Published
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 68.3%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. The record indicates that respondent requires rehabilitation. This court’s duty to the public requires that respondent affirmatively demonstrate his rehabilitation before we allow him to resume his place on the rolls of those permitted to practice law in Ohio. We have thus far suspended respondent from the practice of law for an interim period. We now hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for an indefinite period. Costs taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.